सभी
← Back to Squawk list
Boeing tells FAA it does not believe 737 MAX wiring should be moved
Boeing Co (BA.N) told the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration it does not believe it needs to separate or move wiring bundles on its grounded 737 MAX jetliner that regulators have warned could short circuit with catastrophic consequences, people familiar with the matter said on Friday. (uk.reuters.com) और अधिक...Unless anyone on this thread designs and certifies aircraft in the USA(or anywhere else in the world for that matter)...I do by the way and not for Boeing...you should clam up as you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are ranting about.
The FAA (or any government agency for that matter anywhere in the world) rarely has the expertise in-house to design(or re-design) an aircraft as has been proven many times over the years. So what this process often boils down to is a Q&A against some often very poorly written and conflicting regulation(s)and then a negotiation over the dispute to reach an outcome. Happens everyday around the world on every make and model of aircraft.
Government authorities can(and often do) play "what-if" well beyond any sane threshold of probability...if you understand 6-sigma, then you have some idea of what this means. And while Boeing clearly did not do themselves one single favor in handling this situation, they are obviously now in a "penalty box" which has nothing to do with the original technical issue being examined. Imagine a congressional committee if you will trying to take someone to task over some issue which none of the representatives on the panel have one ounce of knowledge about (hint: they're mostly lawyers and other people who couldn't get real jobs)...that's your FAA methodology...they're not happy Until you're not happy. Any less qualified individual who can spin a tale, can ask more questions than a wise man can answer.
The Max won't fail because it is not an airworthy aircraft, it will fail from government underachievers suddenly trying to become overachievers. Many other government agencies around the world view this as a get-out-of-jail-free-card to cover their own tracks of mishandling airline operational certificates and training under their purview as they have plenty of skeletons in their closets...make no mistake about that. Their are many airlines around this world I would not fly on for a free ticket no matter what aircraft they are flying.
Try a little critical thinking outside the lamestream narrative and you might have an epiphany.
The FAA (or any government agency for that matter anywhere in the world) rarely has the expertise in-house to design(or re-design) an aircraft as has been proven many times over the years. So what this process often boils down to is a Q&A against some often very poorly written and conflicting regulation(s)and then a negotiation over the dispute to reach an outcome. Happens everyday around the world on every make and model of aircraft.
Government authorities can(and often do) play "what-if" well beyond any sane threshold of probability...if you understand 6-sigma, then you have some idea of what this means. And while Boeing clearly did not do themselves one single favor in handling this situation, they are obviously now in a "penalty box" which has nothing to do with the original technical issue being examined. Imagine a congressional committee if you will trying to take someone to task over some issue which none of the representatives on the panel have one ounce of knowledge about (hint: they're mostly lawyers and other people who couldn't get real jobs)...that's your FAA methodology...they're not happy Until you're not happy. Any less qualified individual who can spin a tale, can ask more questions than a wise man can answer.
The Max won't fail because it is not an airworthy aircraft, it will fail from government underachievers suddenly trying to become overachievers. Many other government agencies around the world view this as a get-out-of-jail-free-card to cover their own tracks of mishandling airline operational certificates and training under their purview as they have plenty of skeletons in their closets...make no mistake about that. Their are many airlines around this world I would not fly on for a free ticket no matter what aircraft they are flying.
Try a little critical thinking outside the lamestream narrative and you might have an epiphany.
Damn I'm sick of all the Boeing bashing. Boeing has an excellent point and I quote from the article:
"Boeing has noted in talks with the FAA that the same wiring bundles are in the 737 NG, which has been in service since 1997 and logged 205 million flight hours without any wiring issues." Why would the FAA invent an issue with a system that far exceeds their own expected failure criteria? The FAA's "issue" simply makes no sense. There is simply nothing wrong with the 737 MAX that hasn't been or is being addressed. The changes made by Boeing in conjunction with the FAA will make it a great, safe airplane. Y'all act like no other manufacturer has ever made a mistake / bad call / engineering error not to mention general aviation and military aircraft. McDonnell/Douglas, Airbus, Lockheed, de Havilland, etc., etc., etc. all have built defective aircraft resulting in far more deaths than the two MAX crashes. Not that there should ever be any but the nothing will ever be perfect. Boeing is paying a huge financial and reputation penalty for this mistake and in retrospect the resolutions of this error will make it an even greater company. If I were still an active pilot I would fly the 737 MAX in a New York minute. Type rated on 737-200 through 700NG, 757, 767, A320 series. 24,800 hours, 42 years, civilian, military, airline, corporate.
"Boeing has noted in talks with the FAA that the same wiring bundles are in the 737 NG, which has been in service since 1997 and logged 205 million flight hours without any wiring issues." Why would the FAA invent an issue with a system that far exceeds their own expected failure criteria? The FAA's "issue" simply makes no sense. There is simply nothing wrong with the 737 MAX that hasn't been or is being addressed. The changes made by Boeing in conjunction with the FAA will make it a great, safe airplane. Y'all act like no other manufacturer has ever made a mistake / bad call / engineering error not to mention general aviation and military aircraft. McDonnell/Douglas, Airbus, Lockheed, de Havilland, etc., etc., etc. all have built defective aircraft resulting in far more deaths than the two MAX crashes. Not that there should ever be any but the nothing will ever be perfect. Boeing is paying a huge financial and reputation penalty for this mistake and in retrospect the resolutions of this error will make it an even greater company. If I were still an active pilot I would fly the 737 MAX in a New York minute. Type rated on 737-200 through 700NG, 757, 767, A320 series. 24,800 hours, 42 years, civilian, military, airline, corporate.
Hi Gary,
Wiring harness/bundle contents and their routing in an aircraft are not always a trivial matter.
According to the investigation into the July 1996 TWA 800 (25 year old 747-100) explosion, a "high voltage" (115/120 volt) wire in the same harness/bundle as a low-voltage sensor wire, over years of airframe operation during which insulation in adjacent wires can chafe, can cause a short circuit which might result in arcing. In the case of TWA 800 such a short-circuit is claimed to have been the source of an electric current which caused a tank-sensor spark which ignited the explosion that destroyed the 25 year old a/c
In 2017 a 4 year old 777-300 in Australia experienced an inflight cargo compartment fire because insulation on a 115 volt wire chafed through against a screw. There were five other incidents of 777 wiring arcing because of chafing. To quote the Incident report "...subsequent investigation conducted by Boeing found that the wire bundle W5279 had been incorrectly routed, likely during aircraft manufacture, and had not been installed as per the design drawings...".
I am under the impression that there may be at least one fly-by-wire control wire adjacent to a high-voltage wire in the harness/bundle under discussion in the NG and Max.
Wiring harness/bundle contents and their routing in an aircraft are not always a trivial matter.
According to the investigation into the July 1996 TWA 800 (25 year old 747-100) explosion, a "high voltage" (115/120 volt) wire in the same harness/bundle as a low-voltage sensor wire, over years of airframe operation during which insulation in adjacent wires can chafe, can cause a short circuit which might result in arcing. In the case of TWA 800 such a short-circuit is claimed to have been the source of an electric current which caused a tank-sensor spark which ignited the explosion that destroyed the 25 year old a/c
In 2017 a 4 year old 777-300 in Australia experienced an inflight cargo compartment fire because insulation on a 115 volt wire chafed through against a screw. There were five other incidents of 777 wiring arcing because of chafing. To quote the Incident report "...subsequent investigation conducted by Boeing found that the wire bundle W5279 had been incorrectly routed, likely during aircraft manufacture, and had not been installed as per the design drawings...".
I am under the impression that there may be at least one fly-by-wire control wire adjacent to a high-voltage wire in the harness/bundle under discussion in the NG and Max.
Nobody is questioning whether or not wiring is a critical safety concern.
Gary , i have found that almost with-out exception , at least one aircraft in every model type built by all the aircraft manufacturers that you mention , have suffered a major crash . And thanks to Agencies like the NTSB and those in most other advanced countries , we often find out what the devil went wrong . But , when it comes to a manufacturer , designing and selling an aircraft that the company Knows has built in Flaws that are known to be questionable ,,there are very few of those examples . Because of this , this has caused World Renowned Boeing to rightly suffer . It may not be fair , but it just may be necessary ......I'm sorry to say this as i've had great respect for Boeing Aircraft .......But something has gone terribly wrong .........DGR
One of these resulted in an in-flight cargo compartment fire over Australia in October 2017. In that incident "Discharging the fire bottles in the forward cargo space ....had nil effect on this occasion as the source of the electrical arcing was in the sealed zone between the cargo ceiling panel and the passenger floor compartment, not in in the cargo compartment."
See www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774692/ao-2017-101_final.pdf
I apologise if anyone is offended but I am posting the information below twice as I believe it is very relevant to this topic.
According to the investigation into the July 1996 TWA 800 (25 year old 747-100) explosion, a "high voltage" (115/120 volt) wire in the same harness/bundle as a low-voltage sensor wire, over years of airframe operation during which insulation in adjacent wires can chafe, can cause a short circuit which might result in arcing. In the case of TWA 800 such a short-circuit is claimed to have been the source of an electric current which caused a tank-sensor spark which ignited the explosion that destroyed the 25 year old a/c
In 2017 a 4 year old 777-300 in Australia experienced an inflight cargo compartment fire because insulation on a 115 volt wire chafed through against a screw. There were five other incidents of 777 wiring arcing because of chafing. To quote the Incident report "...subsequent investigation conducted by Boeing found that the wire bundle W5279 had been incorrectly routed, likely during aircraft manufacture, and had not been installed as per the design drawings...".
I am under the impression that there may be at least one fly-by-wire control wire adjacent to a high-voltage wire in the harness/bundle under discussion in the NG and Max.